AOkay I'll wait and do those now. 
AI noticed that the readme uses "container image" in other places. Should I call it (the mentioned line) "published image" or "published container image"?
XI think container image is alright in the README, cause that's what it technically is. I think either is fine and I'd go with "published image" for the mentioned line.
AAgreed, it reads more nicely too.
A@hermmm The fix is pushed. Was there anything else that needs doing before TV?
XYou're good for TV!
ASweet, time to see episode 2 of The Wire! 
Hope you have a nice evening in Finland too!
Hope you have a nice evening in Finland too!XEverything is done and dusted, well, it never is, but regarding this PR yes.
XThanks, you too!
ALast minute thought: I just realized why forks don't run upstream's workflow when submitting PRs. Because that'd be the reverse security exploit: Then the upstream could create malicious actions that run in every fork that submits a PR, using the fork's secrets/credentials.
Likewise, PRs don't run on the upstream/target's build machine either, because that'd allow PRs to run exploits on the target infrastructure.
So yeah @j0rge : All Pull requests in all our repos run with the GitHub Actions workflow of the primary branch of the fork, using the fork's secrets/environments, using the fork's build queue/runner.
Therefore, we need to remind people to sync their fork's primary branch's workflow with upstream whenever they submit PRs.
Likewise, PRs don't run on the upstream/target's build machine either, because that'd allow PRs to run exploits on the target infrastructure.
So yeah @j0rge : All Pull requests in all our repos run with the GitHub Actions workflow of the primary branch of the fork, using the fork's secrets/environments, using the fork's build queue/runner.
Therefore, we need to remind people to sync their fork's primary branch's workflow with upstream whenever they submit PRs.
A
A^ Now it's time for The Wire!
Jyeah we can't run stuff on forks and PRs
Jlike at first we wanted to make per PR builds but to do that securely requires more infra so we tabled it (it's the last card allllll the way to the right on the board)
XNow that you're here @j0rge , could you go ahead and rename
main in startingpoint to template if that is possible, as I seem to lack the required permissions or knowhow to do it.Jnor me, but we're about to find out lol
XWell it changed!
XSo thanks
XBTW, how's it with the website? All the PRs seem to be failing (https://github.com/ublue-os/website/pulls). I just submitted two PRs the other day and there's another approved one from last week that hasn't merge yet because of build failures.
Bthis probably should have it's "fork" threads cut https://github.com/ublue-os/startingpoint
edit: more specifically, it shouldn't be a "fork" of
edit: more specifically, it shouldn't be a "fork" of
ublue-os/base and show how far ahead/behind it is from ublue-os:mainXwhat does that mean
Bit's a standalone thing
Xyeah yeah that's true
Bi think it can be done, but may be a github support ticket
Xi just created it as a fork originally, because that was the easiest way
XIt's a Github support ticket with a bot that does it in like max 10 min, I've done it before.
XGitHub Support is here to help. Learn about GitHub products, browse our helpful resources, and contact support with your questions.
Byeah, no complaints about how it got here, but i was just reading, looking at some of what y'all were discussing and I noticed that.
cool that it's so easy to do!
cool that it's so easy to do!
X
Xor I guess @j0rge and @marcoceppi are the only ones that can do it
Jok trying it
Bisnt it a setting to disasocate it from what it is based on
Byou want some feedback on this recommendation?
ADefinitely. We just got a ticket in ublue-os/base which got labeled inside ublue-os/startingpoint as "related". The ties need to be cut for sure.
The ties need to be cut for sure.AThe rename even propagates to forks of startingpoint. This is cool!
AYes would love to. But I was gonna mention that I figured out another big issue with how bluefin is forcibly writing to the dconf database of the system:
Rebasing away from bluefin breaks the system because all the bluefin settings (since they're settings rather than mere defaults) will stay behind.
On the other hand, if we soften it to use overridden per-image system defaults instead, then rebasing to bluefin would also break in reverse if a person rebases to bluefin but has modified some defaults on their system. Then those don't get synced.
So yeah it's a mess. Dconf was written long before the idea of rebasing between distros ever existed as a thought!
Rebasing away from bluefin breaks the system because all the bluefin settings (since they're settings rather than mere defaults) will stay behind.
On the other hand, if we soften it to use overridden per-image system defaults instead, then rebasing to bluefin would also break in reverse if a person rebases to bluefin but has modified some defaults on their system. Then those don't get synced.
So yeah it's a mess. Dconf was written long before the idea of rebasing between distros ever existed as a thought!
AI think trying to fix home directory configuration hysteresis is out of scope for ostree-based systems so if you keep going this way you can probably find this problem with anything that writes to the home
AClean rebasing would need something to deal with all the homedir stuff
Jyeah
JI am totally fine being like "hey so dconf is old so like, here's the gotchas when rebasing."
Jlike I'm not filing issues on kde/gnome's home settings and paths, I ain't got time for that
Agonna move this message to bluefin
ASherman and I discovered that we don't seem to be calling "cleanup" anywhere, which means that we're shipping the RPM caches of all installed packages. That's a lot of useless data.
AThis example of how to clean caches is given by cgwalters: https://github.com/coreos/rpm-ostree/issues/4178
AI've done a ripgrep across all repo files and can't see cleanup anywhere:
rg --hidden 'ostree.*cleanup'AWait, maybe this is a false alarm. I was looking at fixing startingpoint and noticed that it does manual cleanup. I guess all repos do it this way.
AIt's only being done in startingpoint and main.
AByeah, but this is a good example where its a different step from another RUN where we do installs
and each RUN is a layer, so cleanup happens too late
and each RUN is a layer, so cleanup happens too late
